"Arctic Amplification" of Global Warming | Prof. Philip Wookey | TEDxHeriotWattUniversity
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 10. 2015
- As a region, the Arctic is warming faster than any other part of the planet; it is both a sentinel of global change and a key component of the climate system. In this talk Phil will highlight the powerful linkages between the biosphere and the cryosphere (the frozen world) in the Arctic, and how this matters to us all.
Phil is Professor of Ecosystem Science at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. He holds a Combined Honours degree from the University of Exeter (1984) and a PhD in air pollution effects research from Lancaster University and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (1988). His passion for "The North" and unwavering love of cold, snowy and windswept places has inevitably led him to the Arctic, where he continues to research its amplification on global warming.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
This TED talk was in Oct 2015. Much of what he talks about has changed e.g. the earth is constantly changing. Watch "Climate Realism" on CZcams which gives more recent info ( 2020 ).
Interesting talk and I would certainly not challenge your observations. My question is “What is the cause” and how much are human emissions influencing the climate changes. Also we have had global warming and high carbon dioxide levels in the past. So another question I have is, “What caused the subsequent decrease in temperature and decrease in CO2 both of which happened long before the industrial revolution and so must have recovered through natural forces?”.
You are correct. Looking at true empirical evidence to find out the truth is what we must do. Research and experimentation is the foundation of true science. Computer models that have been “parameterized” is not science.
It is my hope that more & more people take a serious look and the large amount of scientific data available and think for themselves.
Yes then they will see the political hoax.Gore is counting his millions have scared the world witless.
Mother Nature at work and lots of folks dazzled by the process they would like to understand but cannot. Father Time will teach us what it is all about in due time. In the meanwhile just relax and enjoy your time here on our spaceship, Planet Earth.
Why do you only compare present day sea ice levels to the period between 1970 - 2000 and not to the levels in the 1940s when newspapers reported significantly low levels of arctic sea ice levels as observed by mariners and hunters? Isn't this part of the normal climate cycle of our planet?
No, this change dwarfs natural change. See Peter Wadhams Ted talk to see data going back futher...as you’ll see it’s much worse then portrayed in this talk.
A point I've made many times over is that you cannot have a positive feedback mechanism where the gain is greater than unity and the input and output are connected together. Try connecting the non-inverting input of an opamp to the output and see if you can make it do anything useful, so connected.
The situation here is that the input and output to any proposed feedback mechanism are both atmospheric temperature. Thus, as soon as the feedback operates you will have a system which either latches-up or oscillates.
Here's the rub: Seasonal and diurnal temperatures vary by many times the amount supposedly needed to trigger these feedbacks. This is true even in the Arctic. Thus it is hard to see how such feedbacks could exist without being triggered by natural weather. The argument that weater is localised doesn't hold true either, since once a mechanism such as clathrate release has been triggered in a given area, it cannot be triggered again for a substantial time. Thus, over time, all such 'clathrate bombs' would be defused by periods of localised warm weather.
What you seem to fail to understand is that the increase in (long-term average) temperature causes an increase in the thermal radiation, in such a way that the effect of the positive feedback is a higher equilibrium temperature than would be the case without the feedback. And, of course, you must not forget that the earth is huge and the ocean in particular has an extremely high heat capacity, so any change that should cause a shift in the long-term equilibrium temperature will take a long time to take place.
the Eemian was several degrees warmer with sea level many meters higher than the holocene yet co2 levels were similar to the pre industrial holocene . no runaway greenhouse gasses ( and no co2 forcing )
Thank you or your comment. Since I am excessively curious I seek out all information that challenges what I think.
These are great talks, very informative. But I think the part that is missing is what happens when we alter the ratio of CO2 and O2. It's a very critical balance for us dependent on O2. We can deal with change in climate and such but we absolutely can not deal with a change in the atmosphere's CO2 O2 ratio. Unless you've figured out another way to breathe.
This is correct, the percent share of O2 in the atmosphere is decreasing. However not an issue, O2 makes up 1/5 of earth's atmosphere while CO2 makes up 0.04%, Even if we were to triple, quadruple or x10 the amount of CO2 we would have, it would not make a worrying effect on the O2 content for atmosphere. A study shows that the annual lost is around 1 O2 molecule for every 5 million air molecules. So you don't need to worry about difficulty breathing any time soon.
If somehow there was so much CO2 that this actually became an issue, the greenhouse effect would have removed all life on earth already.
@@Saiyana Thank you, very good to know!
Trees also reflects,,we seem to be putting more blame on co2 and not deforestation
Trees soak up most sunlight, and use that energy to live. They soak up all colours of the rainbow, except green. They only reflect the green part of the rainbow.
Wow, did you have a hard time in chemistry class?
can I make an appeal for Gigatonnes rather than Petagrammes? We don't have to use the recommended SI unit when billions of tonnes is more descriptive, and a tonne is very close to a British ton or a US 'long' ton.
I personally would prefer a statement that a Petagramme is the weight of a cubic kilometre of water, and 4 cubic kilometres of water is 1 cubic mile of water within an accuracy of 2%.
References to Petagrammes or Gigatonnes are difficult to visualize unless you already know the mass of a cubic kilometre or mile of water.
I read that Arctic Amplification (AA) is still under debate, but I can explain: It's related to the specific heat of ice. It's almost the half of water, thus causing warming twice as fast compared with the rest of the world (c water is 4.187 kJ/kgK, for ice 2.108 kJ/kgK.) This theory also explains that large AA occurs only from October to April. because the temperature is below zero in these months. In summer the temperature is moderated by the Latent heat of melting ice. But this will change when all ice has gone. I'm not sure the climate models are aware of this ?
Wrong.
We don’t want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, we want to add it. Carbon based life on Earth is dependent on the availability of CO2 in the carbon cycle. Crop yields, forest growth, and emerging ecosystems (parts of the Sahara Desert) are examples of how life on earth has benefited from humans releasing the sequestered carbon of the past.
video is too quiet even at 100% volume
So the c02 traps the heat in the atmosphere but when it’s just the sun reflecting on ice it just lets the heat through? That doesn’t make sense.
Different wavelength & different place.
CO2 & Methane in the atmosphere absorb the infrared radiation from earth, which normally cools the planet.
Ice & snow reflect all wavelengths immediately back in space, stopping the earth underneath from warming up. Bare earth would warm up, emitting infrared, in turn absorbed by CO2 & Methane, warming the (thinner polar) atmosphere.
CO2 does not absorb the reflection sunlight, since that contains the full spectrum. Only the very slight infrared fraction will be taken out.
@@reuireuiop0Does the bare earth convert much of the energy present in all wavelengths into infrared energy?
I actually feel sadness when I read that computer algorithms have been modified to achieve a desired result. It is indeed sad that “scientists” would have so little intellectual integrity.
Where do you differ from Tony Heller and Patrick Moore? And why?
Ahh Some body Please give Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble a Call they were running around in the Good ole Days EH!
"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.” - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.” - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
- Al Gore, Climate Change activist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
Too little and too late. I hope I'm wrong.
Then what are we going to do to stop the ice from melting?
Burn less carbon than before.
Dont worry it isnt!
Only in computer models and places where they get juicy research Grant's.Its threatened to be gone by 2000,205,2015,2020 but it's still here.
Like Jehovas end of the world keeps moving.
Watch Tony Heller on the Artic ice defusing to melt and beat project fear.
@JZ's Best Friend 96% of the CO2 emitted and absorbed each year is natural. Which CO2 molecules will stay in the air and at what altitude?
@@martinbrandom2654 Agreed
I continue to be surprised about TEDx talks and I am no longer taking the speakers seriously. I wonder if this figure can really call himself a professor. He "forgets" quite a few things in his story. The mortgage has to be paid and food has to be brought to the table, isn't it? If nothing is wrong, the subsidy stops and then .....? So just forget that the temp on the Artic around the 40s was as high as it is now (with lower CO2 values), after which the temp plummeted so much that the "scientists" predicted that we would freeze together. That is why those years were "conjured" from the graphs
Ton Hoffmann. Where do you 'conjure' your evidence from? Got a link, or two?
Ton Hoffmann The full data for latitudes 64-90°N reveal the Arctic is warmer today than in 1940.
Anthony Matthews Google Tony Heller. He publishes real actual unadulterated data that doesn’t rely on forecasting warming to get a grant.
For argument sake, let's say it is. What proof is there co2 is the cause? Greenland was once, well, green, and yet humanity survived. Nothing to worry about, as far as climate goes. You should be asking, why are folks being so alarmist about climate change; something which has been occuring for millions of years.
I've heard alarmists claim humans are putting too much energy into the climate system, when even the ipcc knows the sun supplies over 99% of the system's energy. They also know the milankovitch cycles are the primary driver behind climate change. Need a source? See the ipcc reports.
Ahh JOE BIDEN is President of the USA! STILL! So go Figueroa that NOt ALL SCIENTISTS are EQUAL! This fella seems Genuine in his belief though! THE LEFTY Climate Gaters and Righty Climate GATERS all the Same! Paid to do a study and add the the Desired Objective! MASS HUMAN Reduction, using all available Methods! BUGG and Needle just part of the solution huh!
this is a heated comment section but I would just like to point out I have never heard anyone call it MEthane before. very interesting indeed.
The planet needs c02
Plants need c02
The earth is greener than it's ever been
let me know how breathing more c02 goes for you? I'm not a plant and don't want to breathe more of it.
@@diegooland1261 we breathe oxygen in and breathe c02 out ,maybe we should all stop breathing that should
help the crisis 🤔
@@John-fv2lb The point being by changing the CO2 O2 ratio we will not have enough "air" to breathe.
At 18:15.
9 billion tonnes of human produced carbon annually? I think not. In 2018 its ~36 billion tonnes annually. It didn't quadruple in three years.
~36Gt of CO2 is what you get if you burn ~9.8Gt of carbon, there are these two extra oxygen atoms that get added you see. The figures given were entirely accurate, he was comparing soil carbon content to amount of fossil carbon burned by humans. He was not comparing human CO2 emissions to possible CO2 emissions from Arctic. Because even though human emissions are well known and quantified, it's not well known and quantified how much of emissions from Arctic could be as CO2 and how much could be as CH4. Or for that matter how much of carbon locked in Arctic soils could be released in the first place and how fast.
@@aleksandersuur9475 I suppose they took samples and tested the levels of these emissions. Know of any relevant articles?
You probably already know that tropospheric temperature measurement is one of the best ways to measure warming in the atmosphere. The actual observable temperature is approximately 2.4 times lower then 100 climate models have predicted that it should be.
starts right off cherry picking using 1950 to 1980 baseline ; known to be a cold period in the arctic . if he used 1900 to 1950 , arctic temps were similarly warm as post 1980 with significant melting
I was fine until the end yes those are natural processes we all know that the problem is is the rate in which they are happening now the great glaciers are dropping much much more ice than they did before
1,400 petagrams.. damn
Date of talk?
30th September 2015
9:20 Greenhouse gases. The only greenhouse gas that maters is water vapor and this ignoramus doesn't even mention it. Earth's greenhouse effect is the model of system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor that adds 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature and takes place within 20 meters of the earth's surface. After 20 meters from the radiating surface all the greenhouse radiant energy has been completely absorbed by greenhouse gases. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.
Its not possible for greenhouse gases to be the cause of global warming because they are only active in earth's greenhouse effect which is always in saturation from water vapor and can't have its overall effect changed.
Arctic Amplification is a very misleading term for Arctic warming. That is because the Arctic is not amplifying anything. Global warming has been at about 1°C since the early 1990s. Global warming was reported at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. If the Arctic were amplifying global warming it would be zero over the last thirty years, but the Arctic is getting warmer. The most likely theory for Arctic warming is warmer Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. This is a redistribution of heat across the earth if this theory proves correct. There is the increased warming effect that the warmer Arctic Ocean will cause a reduction of sea ice and on land snow cover causing solar radiation to be much more absorbed by the ground and especially the dark sea water causing increased warming than would happen when much of it is reflected by the white snow or ice covered surface.
It should be pointed out that in geologic times when the earth was much warmer and the poles were ice free there was still months of no sun at the poles during their winters, but there was enough heat transferred from other parts of the earth to keep the region hospital to tropical plants. That heat transfer would have had to have been from ocean currents. Those polar region tropical plants would have had to have a dormant session to survive with no sunlight for a few months each year. This implies in the distance past both the Arctic and Anarchic must of had large warm ocean currents keeping them warm during months of no sunlight.
In the back of the United Nation's IPCC science report of about 200 pages it states the truth it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude and only that one altitude! If this were real science it would be expected the entire air column would be sampled, but it's not real science. That 20,000 meter altitude greenhouse gas sampling statement is a legal disclaimer of data transparency. It can be legally argued a high school science educated person would know from that 20,000 meter altitude sampling statement the IPCC is not dealing with active greenhouse gas behavior or earth's greenhouse effect and is therefore in-fact is not dealing with greenhouse gases in a manor conducive to the discussion of global warming. This is the same marketing practice as when a beverage is labeled as "All Natural Fruit Juice Flavors" and in the ingredients it states the truth "contains no actual fruit juices".
Warmth is good. More plants. More life......more days on the boat.
What about the countries where it's already hot?
@@danieljoseph6404 maybe it’s a climate shift and they will start getting colder and see more winter?
Record low temps in the USA hmmm.......
the USA represents less than 5% of the world's land mass, so low temps there are not a meaningful measure of world climate.
SwiftlyTiltingPlanet This is the perfect scam. By the time it’s proven to be BS, the ones behind it will already be dead of natural causes. The time table has already been moved forward several times and of course it will continue to be.
@@redfestivabo259 Canadian permafrost collapses 70 years earlier than predicted. I wish it was as scam, I really do. But ecosystems are collapsing; the evidence can only be ignored by conspiracy theorists, fossil fuel shills, and hopeless ideologues.
@@danzel1157 So Canada becomes more green and more capable of producing timber and food products. Same as Siberia. Where is the problem?
@@johannesswillery7855 Well, you might not see any problem at all, if you thought the Earth consisted solely of Canada.
This is the definition of cherry picking. His reference baseline was created immediately after a very warm period. In a period where cooling was the cyclical norm. In terms of climate data, a reference on 30 years is a micro-fart in the hurricane of data. If he would have started the graph in the 40's, there would have been a blue cooling trend, not a red warming trend. This is pseudo-science and may play with the people that aren't science literate; but the rest of us see your silly talk as silly.
There is some good information here, but the gist of what he's saying is false.
Good presentation. But i hear always from scaring potential positive feed backs. To understand these arctic ecosystems we have to know also the negative feed back loops - the regulators of the systems.
For example i understand that methane concentration in atmosphere is regulated by soil bacterias which enjoy to eat all of the available methane and reproduce very fast.
Methane also is regulated and stabilized in the atmosphere since billion of years by the photo oxydation process where methane is oxydized by so called hydroxil radicals.
Therefore methane concentration is very stable in the atmosphere.
Why all these IPCC religion believers never talk about negative feedbacks and easy solutions working with nature.
Only trying to scare people and to explain that the only solution is reduction of CO2 and CH4 emissions. This is incredibily primitive.
At the end man you were misinformed yes those are natural processes but these glaciers droppinghave never as fast as this and it's speeding up how can you say there is a natural process? Before global warming when glaciers would drop ice you could sit there for a week and maybe see one fall now it's constant
its speeding up because of the release of methane beneath the ice
Jason Jones This will sorta balance things out after that ice age we had.
The amount of lunatics in this comment section is amazing.
Vent CO2 into a closed glass box, and its ambient temperature is higher.
In 1970, experts informed us, in no uncertain terms, of our self-inflicted demise;
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against
problems facing mankind.” Harvard biologist George Wald.
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, itʼs only a matter of time before light will be
filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” Ecologist Kenneth
Watt.
“In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by
1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the earth by half.”
Life Magazine.
“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man
have already been born...by 1975 some experts feel that food shortages will have
escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable
proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision
will not occur until the decade of the 1980ʼs.” Paul Erlich.
“Air pollution..is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few
years alone.” Paul Erlich.
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a
rate that there wonʼt be any more crude oil. Youʼll drive up to the pump and say, ʻFill ʻer
up, buddy,ʼ and heʼll say, ʻI am very sorry, there isnʼt any.” Ecologist Kenneth Watt.
“One theory assumes that the earthʼs cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust,
fumes and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and
jet planes. Screened from the sunʼs heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall
and freeze, and a new ice age will be born.” Newsweek Magazine.
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue,
the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but
eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us
in an ice age.” Ecologist Kenneth Watt.
"
Itʼs tough to make predictions, especially about the future,” Yogi Berra
.
In May 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued this statement;
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term
prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Obviously extinction was not lurking several-many years ahead back then. Itʼs not now
either. Whatʼs ahead is loss of freedom if we continue to deny truth, instead bowing to
falsified data.
Climate change has always existed. Mankind didnʼt invent it and canʼt
control it. The experts were wrong, but theyʼre still crying “wolf, wolf.”
A question for all you climate alarmists, were the above claims truth or disinformation?
Itʼs time to ignore the experts.
You are talking too fast. ...
Who funds this guy?
SO WHERE in The GALAXY are we NOW? OLE Mah EARTH just doing what’s always Done! JUST ask The DINOSAURS? EH???
This is extinction hes talking about.
none of us have experienced climate change. we have not seen a desert climate change into a tropical climate or any other climate for that matter. stop lying to the children. fact is the carbon dioxide composition of the atmosphere is a mere 0.04%, nitrogen 89% and oxygen 21%. the amout of energy absorbed by the atmosphere = mass of the atmosphere x specific heat capacity of the atmosphere x temperature rise. the specific heat capacity of carbon dioxide is only 40 times bigger than those of oxygen and nitrogen so stop lying to the kids. the specific heat capacity of water is 4200, we all know that water evaporate from ocoans and lakes to fall back down as rain, dumping all that heat it absorbs, into the atmosphere. yet you blame carbon dioxide. there is nothing human can do to influence the evolutiuon of the atmosphere. it will keep evolving. like it or not.
Relax FALSY and Crews of BUGG Makers will take of a bunch of us reducing carbon ! EH!
Here he is actually admitting that global warming is not caused by humans - rather the increase in atmospheric CO2 we are observing is due, in part, to the fact that, in a naturally warming world, we see a reduction in permanent snow and ice AND we see a greater increase in CO2 and CH4 output. He didn't mention this also happens in the oceans, which contribute even more.
His whole talk sums up to "the Arctic (and indeed the Antarctic too, perhaps) is becoming more habitable to most species, less dangerous to life in general. He talked about how the Arctic ice is actually RECOVERING from it's lowest minimum level. He didn't talk about how when Arctic ice was setting new LOW records, Antarctic ice was setting new HIGHEST EXTENT EVER records. He also rushes past the FACT that Arctic sea ice is RECOVERING, not going away, as predicted. The low Arctic ice records had to do with known changes in wind and ocean currents, not CO2. They switch from time to time and when they line up the way they recently did you tend to see more Arctic ice melt. Now they've switched again, aren't lined up the way they sometimes do to give record low ice, so the Arctic ice is recovering - he admitted but did not dwell on that.
And he's admitting that natural processes, not humans, are behind any "amplification of warming" that might be observed.
Finally, he fails to mention that the angle of the sun plays a bigger role than he's letting on. The angle of the sun in the high latitudes is never that high in the sky. So this limits the "albedo" influence.
Go back to school. This is idiotic.
Bull. That is not what he said. He is describing the mechanism of one of the results of warming and some of the cascades set into motion. This takes place normally over thousands to millions of years. This allows evolution to adjust. The human effect is doing per year what would normally be over 100s of years. We have given the process a boost in speed by adding to the cycle. More input means bigger/faster result. Like DUH!.
OMG! He said don't worry about polar bears and that icebergs breaking off are natural!!! His views do not conform with my preconceptions so He should be BANNED from speaking.
I'm so offended. How dare he say not to worry about polar bears. I'm traumatized. Where's the happy safe room?
the video i watched prior to this one says theres a new top dog coming for the polar bears there called killer whales watch a chanel just found called climate state
It's no big deal - polar bears are basically grizzly bears which were cut off from N America and evolved by adapting to the Arctic environment. Genetically both are almost identical. It's all in the visuals - grizzlies don't look cuddly.
The baby ones do... which is why when people see & try to cuddle them, momma comes and eats the people doing it.
Ah, but these are special polar bears, of the species Ursus Photoshopicata.
There is no happy safe room my friend,people are idiots...at least most of them are....l
I don't know how else this beautiful living Earth can get rid of these parasites who are killing it. Who are these parasites? We are. We need to go, or at least our population needs to be dramatically reduced. The Earth is fighting back, and our days are numbered. We have dug our grave and now we must lie in it. If any of us survive, I hope they will have learned their lesson and not repeat the same mistakes.
Thank god for CO2. Life giving and beneficial. I will support any Demokkkrat who chooses not to breath out CO2. Their right to choose. I lit my Barby, must help out the planet. Greenland needs to be green again so we need more CO2. Looking forward to the vineyards returning to UK and Greenland.
Melvin Tindal.
"Looking forward to the vineyards returning to UK and Greenland."
Don't forget the mass migrations, desertification, rising sea levels, food shortages, water scarcities and extra conflicts too. It's going to be a hoot!
@Pistol Pete Well, that's great. Let's hope you'll be charitable to the migrants who come looking for a land less scorched by global warming. Somehow I have my doubts.
@Pistol Pete So that's a 'no' then.
Lies !